An Ideal Society

I’d quote sections of what you’ve written to refer to them more specifically as you have easily been able to do with mine, but it would make my post 10 times longer and I’d spend all day scrolling. I’m all for happiness and exploration, but I object to the persistent use of devices beyond appropriation. It just reminds me of the self-satisfied conceit of the petty who’re so blinded with the delight of having finally adopted a different approach to something ahead of any established trend that they feel the need to show off their approach repeatedly, even when it is far from complementary to the whole point of what they’re communicating, until everyone is sick of it. It permeates this thread obnoxiously and it’s ironic that you seem to skate around the accusation that I’m bound by my format. The irony is extended further by the amount of empty ‘air’ blowing around within these vast posts of yours inadvertently complementing the vacuous nature of the thoughts they contain.

I use rhetorical devices myself when writing if appropriate. Concise stabs suit my cutting points. The increased density of my word layouts mirror the impenetrable solidarity of my understanding. Not straying from certain customs all the time can show good taste. It is in bad taste and disrespectful of ancestry to persistently attempt to escape custom to overexaggerate your individuality, as though you think you are great and separate from the manifold historical factors that have contributed to your current situation, when in fact you are just blind to them. Your high-horse is so high, you daren’t jump off it.

Yes. Your entire list is a list of pursuits as though they were leisures that everyone can take for granted and indulge in if they see themselves as cultured enough. You’re so bourgeois you don’t even seem to be aware of different lifestyles to your own. None of the list is noble, except the one you had previously left out, ‘testing one’s courage’, which you immediately go on to sully with narcissistic displays of humility by exaggerating and prostrating yourself in servile apology. ‘Ignoble’ doesn’t go far enough here. Then you go on to illustrate further ignorance with your accusation of my aimless laziness in refusing to idiotically moralise. My objection is towards your objectional attitude that anyone who doesn’t organise narrow minded criteria to ‘sensibly’ structure their life’s practices is lower than you.

It seems being a vagabond here would actually benefit you so I definitely advocate unprincipled behaviour for one such as yourself. It would at least widen your experiences of life and give you an improved idea of totality. Maybe it would even thrust you into the life-giving rush of a bit of chaos. Your idea of moralising is in fact just a form of fascism. You prescribe rules to restrict everyone else to the knowable, sensible, restrained box of pacified dispassion because this is the only situation in which you feel protected and safe enough to hide in. You essentially outlaw the realms of explosive flourishes and chance because they’re not focused enough for you to cope with and you would feel scared in a world where they proliferated. What a world that would be, in the face of this one, where you could feel alive and well matched once again because everyone was as unrestrained as everyone else and capable to engage passionately with one another to their heart’s content.

We live in a weak rotting society where every weakness is doted upon and raised up to the accepted norm, such that we dissolve our minds with pity and prune all the new exciting growth clean off our bare wilting stalks, to at least be all weak together. To the strong this is hell, and your signature shows your blindness of what it is to be strong, NOBLE and capable. To reduce oneself in the face of such potential so that the incapable don’t feel outdone is frustrating beyond words. It’s a sick joke that nobility is now so commonly mistaken for equality.

Equally backwards is your notion that lack of goodness breeds ignorance. It is precisely your goodness that blinds you to the merits of what you have branded bad and evil and that makes you ignorant. You actually think that wars come from being unfairly divisive and unsharing. Further irony can be noted here with the observation of your unknowing divisive ways, separating you from those you are ignorant about and separating those who follow your principles from those who see the merits of freeing themselves from them.

You only seem to understand sharing as a meticulous moral imperitive. Real sharing is an uncontrollable release of need to bestow upon equals because of what they have given to you by simply being a life-giving match. This is love and I agree you can’t measure it. I would argue that you are the zombie here because you don’t recognise this kind of love, only a meticulous moral imperitive to share because it’s ‘right’. The kind of love that I here mention is the only source of creative immortality that has always been timeless. You aren’t creating here, you are restricting life to focus on one area of it as morally principled and thus deny the totality of love by outlawing part of it as morally ‘wrong’.

Phewph. I think that’s me done, I do love passion. Now just imagine if I typed all that out without punctuation and with one or two words per line, perhaps even justified to the middle or right of the page to further explore the freedom of the internet post haha.

My dear, Shadow
having crammed virtual space
with verbose denunciations
of an unideal being
and though negatively flattered
to have been singled out in this unflattering way
perhaps you can get back on thread
and grace us with your version
of an ideal individual
and how such a being
multiplied 6 billion times
can grace the planet
with an ideal society

You’re doing it again. It’s not necessary to single yourself out as the only individual against whom I present my argument. There are far more who think like you than you may or may not be aware, and they go back a long way into history and were even praised for it when it was new and first exposed to many via the printing press or word of mouth as religion/law. I do address you directly, but as a single person of many who, when combined, form a significantly frustrating mass of moral abhorence. However, it is much more potent to engage with you one at a time because as a collective you would much less likely listen since you would no doubt feel more complacent in your position: as though numbers of people agreeing made each more justified.

Enough of these ‘verbose denunciations’: they come in this form as a direct overflow of my heart’s demands, I shall humour you and elaborate on my preferences in practice in place of my criticisms of yours.

But firstly, I would be moralising hypocrite if I prescribed an ‘ideal’ society myself, where the only difference would be the ‘ideal’ person doing different activities and having different values being multiplied 6 billion times. Of course, I am using inverted commas because I would never use the word seriously. The ‘ideal’ that you can improve man is, to me, a ridiculous one. This is evident when you consider that a man is as much of a man as he ever will be until he is restricted or focused, i.e. weakened. You can’t add on to a human like a machine or something. He will always be only a product of the bodily needs that drive him. You can only control or restrain parts of him to direct his frustrations towards what you deem as more subjectively constructive to you. These are what laws and morals do because they mistake weakening a man with improving him via a personal prescribed focus: essentially you create the kinds of people you want to engage with. This is crude and embarrassing when, like yourself, you propose a uniformly ordered and disciplined, predictable bunch of pompous misunderstanding fools. You reveal instantly your inability to deal with any kind of chaos, explosive passion and directly overflowing human strength in all the forms you don’t condone. This overflow of power of which I speak, I would call NOBILITY, but never ‘ideal’. It is the source of all drive and creativity.

This makes your REAL request of me to ‘grace’ you with my version of what kinds of people I would like to be surrounded by in my society. In which case, I answer: the exact same people with whom I am actually surrounded by in my society. By no means do I find almost all of them satisfactory enemies or friends because they are far too small, and I get little satisfaction from them being without challenge and easy to belittle from showing the slightest shred of unfettered capability. But this makes it all the more special when I come across a good match. Since this is the nature of the least repressed actual LOVE, and there is so much variety when there’s 6 billion different people, it goes without saying that real love is specific and picky and rare. Anything less and reaching peace with just anyone can only be more weak and withdrawn towards merely ‘tolerating’ their proximity and influence on your life. To say you merely tolerate someone is cruel. To say you love everyone in the way I talk of love is a lie. To attempt to reduce suffering to zero, you eradicate all the ways to lose and thus all the ways to win, so everyone is equally weak and the strong suffer terribly.

As such, 6 billion people in an ideal society is an impossibility. All you need, and all that is even possible is already a reality.

Since they all exist in symbiosis
every social system on the planet
excepting mankind
live and enjoy life
in ideal societies

no specie except our own
wages war on itself
or needs to lie on a couch
and be psychoanalyzed

Ants and bees are particular examples
of the peaceful industry that can be accomplished
when an entire hierarchy works in harmony

nor does a single ant
or single bee
lose its individuality while engaged in social cooperation
on the contrary its individual sense of self-empowerment
is immeasurably magnified by the mass harmonic
and thus
unhampered by the negative load of unequal contribution
to the well-being of the whole
work whole-heartedly
with individual feats of prodigious strength

At heart mankind
who is an extension of that same natural state of consciousness
and who survive in similar hives of communal activity
yearns for a return to the same mass harmonic
we once enjoyed

Attend a stirring concert
or football game
and you can see and hear it again
loud and clear
cheering its heart out

We were all joined together in a family harmonic
during the Stone Age
and then in clan harmonics
during the Bronze Age
and then in national harmonics
during Iron Age
and then in colonial harmonics
during the Steel Age

As each progressive evolution of consciousness
demanded more complex social adjustments
the original family group harmonic
which every culture shares
became slightly more discordant in relationship
yet its central syncopated melody
based on shared family values
remained intact
no matter what language or creed we practiced

This being so
with us all agreed on the same family values
and our individual responsibilities to it
It is ideally possible
at the start of this new Nuclear Age
for the whole of our specie
to come together
via the home-based medium of the internet
and plan to work together
stewarding the home planet
as a single family estate
with every individual doing his or her own bit
to make the harmony a master piece

If we all agree to sing the same family song
not one of us will lose our own voice
and every one of us
while singing in the same chorus line
will soar to heights
no single individual
can ever hope to attain
alone

I’ve probably lost you since you’ve disengaged with me and gone back to how you started off. Fair enough, I’ll change tack. Before, I was demonstrating the vim of one who would feel left out of what your ideals strive to achieve. Now, I shall be a little more calmly and coldly analytical about it in the continued hope that you will realise why a complete reevalution of your values is in order.

First I’ll be Derridean about deconstructing your enunciations. The entire proposal is based on privileging peace and fulfilling cooperation over their binary opposite. This will seem like an absurd comment to you I’m sure because it seems that in your sphere of experience, no-one could possibly want this binary opposite. Evidently many people do haha, hence this binary opposite persistently happening to the point where people question whether it’s just human nature. I think you’d call them, from your cosy internet chair: wrong or evil; unenlightened or ignorant. In reality, people are driven to these activities through necessity as well as passion and for gaining the initiative or upper hand. You’ll say it shouldn’t be necessary, but it is because there are many long established interpretations of peace or success in the world. For there to be global peace you’d need all these interpretations to come to an agreement, which evidently at the moment hasn’t been possible because of physically impossibly reconcilable contradictions in any possible synthesis. If what you came up with was original, you’d just be adding yet another irreconcilable set of principles to the fray.

A brief tangent here referring to your comments on other species: strictly speaking, epistemologically, a human understanding of another species’ society is restricted by exactly its own human understanding and imprinting of its own values upon the society in question. You can’t physically be a bee to have a bee’s understanding of its own society for example. Disgracing myself a bit here with this ludicrous piece of abstraction: maybe in a bee’s point of view, humans are harmonious and bees just can’t seem to get along haha. But that quickly aside, you see my point, back to reality. Any human understanding of any bee’s society will not observe a significant division of labour to the degree that interests within the society clash. Now time to get a bit Marxist. All social behaviour in bee or similar insect societies can be explained in terms of direct biological imperitive to pursue only the tasks that the member’s body physically demands that it do. There is no removal of interest by a dominant member of the society that dictates the imperitive to act differently so each bee seems able to act away to its heart’s content in perfect bee-bliss.

A step up from this and we find pack animals that have roles like alpha male and strict hierarchy enforced by physical strength and abilty, like the wolf. Here there is division of labour towards roles like pack leader etc. In this case it is in every male member’s interest to be the pack leader. Every male wolf has a direct bodily urge to dominate and have control over the rest so that it can contribute to the pack’s interests as well as to its own as this is the most satisfying bodily outcome. War is most certainly present at a microscale here and the only wolf who doesn’t want it is the alpha male.

But then at the top step (in human understanding at least) you have humans. Our societies increasingly outnumber any bee swarm or pack of any other species in the entire world. We aren’t the most common species on the planet but our societies incorporate the most members. We have progressed far beyond these swarm and pack behaviours that we attach to other species and previous incarnations of our own species. Division of labour has gotten to the point where the working classes are practically completely removed from the ruling classes. There’s so many people that the number of roles is off the chart. Generations of specialism of those within their roles passing down knowledge has isolated their general understandings of the society as a whole to an understanding of the few with things in common with themselves. We have factories on the other side of the world set up by executives who’ve never been close to the factory sites. This is what the global commincation of the internet has been able to do. Use it for more personal communication and you’ll still never ever have your whole upbringing in more than 2 places at once in this huuuuuuge vast planet. Your understanding will never be deep of another who’s division in labour is far removed from yours, so you will never be united together as one as you so seem to desire.

The point is, bees seem to get along because their interests are still directly in touch with their physical needs. Wolves seem to never have large scale wars because their packs just haven’t become big enough to separate enough to create intra-pack war through removed conflict of interest. Of course, they do have inter-pack war over territory but nothing like we do with our vast vast communities that only get bigger and more separated with increased communication. As soon as we humans are past the point where division of labour has separated our interests from our immediate bodily awareness and direct fulfillment, total harmony dissolves to make way for increased dominance and maximised satisfaction ONLY for those of the ruling classes. And even their satisfaction deteriorates once they’ve passed the point where mostly everything is under control because they’ll have appeased their working class as part of their aims to the point where no one has anything better to do than think about how to eliminate all the work that’s been done by banding together under erroneus principles of an out-of-touch abstraction artist such as yourself O:)

All human family groups
even if they may not practice them
respect the same family values
which have been imprinted in our common gene pool
over the past 100,000 generations of humane evolution

Sharing ethic
work ethic
courage ethic
community ethic
caring ethic
communication ethic
creative ethic
intellectual ethic

The commonalty of those values
ensures intimate understanding of each other
irrespective of race creed or location
and sustains the solid foundation
of a single family group
who appreciate ad respect their common origins
and aspire
to a common destination

All of course
except silhouette and his like
who only have a shadow
of common understanding ](*,)

Haha nice play on my name :smiley:

You raise an interesting point though finally. I reject common understanding in favour of uncommon understanding because it is a lot more personally rewarding to me to succeed and create outside of the recycling of the common values. So inadvertently I privilege the one over the other, which is getting left out of my thoughts. This will be where we clash.

Now if you’ll only acknowledge the exact same privileging in your own method, but in reverse, then you might finally see my arguments a lot more clearly. Not everyone finds their own ideal in yours, as I have demonstrated through myself. No doubt you would prefer to pass my case off as an unfortunate result of the current lack of upholding of your principles in society. But as long as there is genetic variation in the world, the same upbringing will necessarily never be enough to satisfy all of us equally. More importantly, if you cut out those such as myself ‘and my like’ you cut out progression and a feeling of advancement, which as an immediate bodily rush of achievement, is one of the most rewarding experiences possible.

I bring up the division of labour because it maximises production efficiency and allows for the new technology that we enjoy today. You must acknowledge the result of those outside of your ideals as a preferable result of the current lack of upholding your principles in society! Genuine creation doesn’t happen in practice under your imagined celebration of unity through diversity, only maintenance, so your like can only maintain the creations of my like. Creation happens only when necessity emerges out of rejection and dissonance. We cease to be honest to our creative drives the day that we abandon the individual in favour of the greater good and all these ‘ethics’ that you mention.

Anyway, as long as there is genetic variation, the body will have naturally varied preferences that don’t always prefer your principles: this is inevitability. Division of social groups will emerge out of inevitability as this family-like mutual appreciation extends most strongly to those who empower ourselves by supporting our own values and less to those you don’t. Hence your conviction here in a situation where you commonly find this empowerment in others who were attracted to the same place. I embody those who oppose your empowerment and reduce it to dust with creativity and strength. You cannot deny the existence of this in society and I implore that you recognise the merits of their existence! No matter how much you maintain your preaching. You even abandon your values in practice by being frustrated and withdrawing away from me. Any compassion you’ve previously shown seems false because it’s merely tolerance and not the natural attraction to those who support you. Given this natural variation in attraction, you can no longer uphold your ideal that attraction and appreciation can be equal, even towards those outside your exact preferences. In a world of 6 billion people, you won’t find equal appreciation. Your family values don’t extend beyond a certain amount of people.

Am I getting anywhere? Or are you stuck in a small minded loop of maintenance and self-replication? A magnet repels just as much as it attracts, man.

My dear Silhouette
much as one can sympathize
with your insistence
that only the uninhibited individual
is capable of original expression
I am forced to remind you
that there is nothing new or original under the sun
everything
with only slight variations
is an off-shoot
of what has already been thought of and accomplished

what we do know
is that when one of us gets it perfectly right
or nearly so
all of us recognize the same perfection
and it gets a standing ovation
FROM ALL OF US
this common recognition of excellence
is not possible without a common appreciation
of shared values

such a mass ovation it is not at all possible
if we accept your world view

Your insistence is therefore that, since there is to you nothing new under the sun, life offers only the tiring tribulation to merely preserve and continuously replicate your life’s continuation - until you can no longer stand. A machine you have become, though a cold and despairing one. The best you tell yourself that you can do is cope with your terrible predicament, adopting principles and practices to lull and distract you into empty illusions of life and improvement. But you sigh as your monotonous drudgery returns and the disturbing monotony of an uncreating life drags you back into reality: the life that you were thrust into begrudgingly and against your will ! You are doomed to suffer your life-sentence as Sisyphus. I will not pity you.

I direct you to The Soothsayer of Chapter 41 in Thus Spake Zarathustra, ‘All is empty, all is alike, all hath been!.. Now do we keep awake and live on - in sepulchres.’

Such have you made life for yourself, so it shall remain. Perhaps your only honest concerns are preparations for a welcome death?

I begin anew with a new post to separate myself from that awful revelation of your true self that depresses me so.

Each moment of life is saturated with colourful buds of continuous new birth that bursts forth with flourishes of bright opportunity and hopeful curious steps toward a welcomingly uncertain future! Each moment is an unrestrainable, uncontainable myriad of infinitely terrifying or joyful scenes that have never before been seen or known in the same way.

Your life may be cold and dull, but mine has not been distilled and imprisoned by rigid objectivisms and the static capturings of things in themselves that you merely walk among as a thing in yourself.

But my body shows me immediate life and motivation where the capturing of concepts is a fun playful activity to simply enjoy on any passing occasion, as a controlling and manipulation of my life that weaves in and out of the spiced uncertainties and surprises that I am so grateful for.

Your understanding of life controls you and you are a slave to it. Mine is my own creation and a playfriend of mine. As such, the perfection of my life is an immediate unavoidably present all-being that I am continuously plugged directly into and equivalent to, whether in the presence of others or not. My mass ovation is my unrelenting individual contentment that I am alive, as though eternally so.

Your mass ovation is a primarily unsure lack of individual confidence until you feel empowered by the collaboration with others that you require to feel capable and strong at all, enough at least to feel like there is any significance to anything or any happiness at all to recognise. This is simply because you don’t feel connected with your body and you float aimlessly among abstracted ideals.

Wonderfully said
shadow man
prancing around a sun-lit glade
in wonderment
like the child you are
but one cannot but wonder
if at night
as you stare up at the starry canopy
and contemplate infinity
how far beyond your tiny self
does your wonder go?

Why sneer at me
and all the humble millions like me
knelt before that heavenly altar
paying homage
to something infinitely larger
than an i ?

A child? Why thank you :slight_smile: I wish, but I am honoured to accept such a generous compliment :blush:

I see you have not yet dissolved the boundaries between your self and your existence. If you knew what it was to be as great as I, you would know that you are one as the infinite finity that is all existence. You say that it is me who is small if I cannot envisage all this as myself and THEN an infinite exterior on top of that. I say that this infinite exterior is one with the interior and indistinguishable until you create such a separation as an invisible dividing line that inhibits and shuts you away from the life you see as flying by outside a small and frail body - we presumably all have the same amount of personal experience to draw from (if impossible abstractions are to be made of another’s conscious)?

As such, once such a separation is made - relatively speaking - you shrink yourself, so it is YOU who are tiny. And you create the idea of that which is exterior to you and doesn’t show itself to be controllable in ways you understand, as a greater being or presence that you can only prostrate and embarrass yourself before with servility and helplessness. This greater being and presence is I.

God is dead, my friend. Has it not occurred to you that when you move backwards, the world ‘around you’ moves forwards? It is all inextricably connected and this is my spirituality that goes far deeper and flows far stronger than any humble payments of homage.

We are all children
in the same playground
some are bullies
some are snobs
who believe they are the elite
the rest are normal

Thanks for the sermon
it was written down in the Upanishads
6000 years ago

For Reasons of His/Her own
an undead God
created life
and chose a separation of consciousness
All the great religions
have their opinion on this
but until the moment of reunification
nobody really knows why
so honor it
and stop pretending you know for sure
or at least come up with something original :mrgreen:

The playground is an interesting situation. Rife with a necessity to dominance or at least capability within the dominating group, but plagued by inexperience and inability. Not yet has each child been either distilled and bitterly restrained by institutions older and more powerful than they, or developed the rewarding reservation of judgement that has the potential to assist later in life. Reservation that opens up opportunities to come to know alternative forms of capability and power, thus flexibility and more rounded security.

Playground bullies are cruel because they are controlled by their need to exert dominance in the only ways they know how, being so haunted by their inabilities in the many other ways in which they have yet to learn capability. In the playground, they have an outlet that sublimates their frustrations of weakness in other areas. Their path is to remain cruel, at least until they are subsequently thrust into of the plight of the weak under new reversed circumstances, because they have only ever known capability in such narrow channels, and as such their hauntedness of inability in other areas persists further.

The bullied - or in your words, the normal - are doomed to renounce their associations with the grounds on which the bullies win, and so they band together to collectively share submissive reassurance in the face of their shame. They don’t envy the bullies, but they envy their power. Their path is to make it their life-long task to succeed in other areas, and to belittle the areas in which they failed so monumentally - to cover up this shame. Some taste dominence in new subsequent petty ways that they find themselves unable to stop exploiting to sublimate this terrible shame.

Each of the above are weak who struggle to hold onto a niche of strength. But in rare cases of huge potential and unrelenting will, there is inability to join the playground elite and refusal to stand down in shame with the wretched ‘normal’. They are forced to carve their own way as an individual, yet remain plagued by the mysteries of their rejection. Often they filter off into creative pockets of solitude, but in rarer cases still, they learn to succeed in the ways they refused and in the ways they failed. Yet neither is marginalised nor clung onto, so true freedom reveals itself. These are the strong and so they subsequently reject the bullies and bullied as the weak excuses of strength that they are. They can immerse themselves within ALL aspects of life, yet find none satisfying to their strength as long as they are accompanied by the narrow weak.

I do not bully you, you mistake my exertion of passion and its minimal but appropriate restraint which merely wishes to carry with it, the proper exposition of its beauty. Such is my offering that I do not give out of morals, principles or ethics, but out of sublimated overflowing will and power. Not to dominate, but to demonstrate dominance and tempt you with it as something to take that is so extremely rewarding. Thus I am benevolent but cold, until ignited by rewarding returns of inciteful passion from another!

But first you must renounce your narrowing principles that give your inabilities away as the strengths of others that you oppose. I only oppose weakness because I do not want to have to pity, nor to be restricted only to engagement with ‘last men’ who live the longest, trapped in the most restricted weakness.

As for these Upanishads, I came across them after my formulation of the above ideas that Nietzsche backs up and contributed most pleasantly towards, upon my highest fortune to read him when I did. I suppose it would be a sermon if I was just quoting them, but in actual fact I oppose many aspects of the Upanishads. For example they privilege peace and calm over explosive messy passion. They also talk of life outside of real life with implications of rebirth and the spirit as separate from the body. More ludicrous abstractions of real life that may as well give birth to proposterous notions such as God!

How can I be anything other than certain when my life is so continously and obviously immediate to me and any propositions of life outside of life are just naive culminations of abstractions FROM real life taken OUT of context. If only these abstraction artists knew what they were talking about and they would realise that in order for these abstractions to make sense and actually WORK, they would resemble this exact real life - the ONLY source from which they have been able to draw upon all along!!

I am original because I draw from the origin of myself and the existence that is me. Original texts that I come to read merely inspire and broaden that which I take into account, only to confirm it later with myself and make up my own mind. This is what originality is.

Shadow man
you mistake my inference
you are not a bully
you lack the muscle

you are a snob
mistaking yourself for Supernman
just like Nietzsche

you and your like
take a fee ride
down an expressway
built by honest labor
if you were dropped naked in the wilderness
panic would set in
and you would be dead inside a week

Actually I don’t lack the muscle. I hone my body by walking everywhere I need to go within reason - sometimes without, learning and practicing martial arts for capability in the physical fields of life and dancing with as little restraint as possible at regular nights out. As explicitly reinforced in ‘Ecce Homo’, Nietzsche reveals his personal attitudes in his own practice to the life-giving importance of physical conditions such as climate, diet and challenging exploration of the varied lands that he lived in over the course of his life.

“Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman - a rope over an abyss”. It follows that the Superman is something attainable in reality but man such as he and I, connects it to the animal - so neither of us presumed to be the Superman, but both of us are connected to him and pulled towards him. Unlike with God, who’s divinity is supposed to be outside of ‘human reality’, Nietzsche’s and my declivity is that our ‘gaze shooteth towards the summit’ to the Superman and our hands ‘would fain clutch and lean - on the depth!’ where the religious man’s gaze ‘shooteth downwards, and the hand graspeth upwards’ as in prayer.

I am happy to be this rope. I am free and passioned enough to have grasped how to live as a ‘higher man’ at least. You are dependent on others to grasp onto, lest you fall off. Do you not want to bathe in the same glorious sunlight as I? Probably not, as you are no doubt against those who exude high amounts of contented confidence and light, revealing an inability in yourself to be such a way, as ‘conceited’ or ‘arrogant’.

Capablity in the wilderness is something I am setting myself up to attain. I come from a background, like you, that has offered opportunities such as education that now enable us to afford luxuries such as internet access ourselves. So wilderness experience has not naturally followed on and is presently minimal, but I would be confident, from what I’ve heard of you, that I would last longer if dropped in there naked now, than you.

Until then I will continue among my descendents who set up these opportunities for me, to be an honest labourer. Although I minimise my involvement in passed-down social institutions to live as much as possible in my own light, rather than be mystified by my place in a world that was handed down to me that dictates how I should be.

:laughing: :laughing:
My background is a mystery to you

You are living your life backwards
I started out in the African wilderness as a youngster
and only when wise to Nature
got an artificial education
for me a hardwood tree is a living conscious being
hundreds of years older and wiser than I
not just a noun
or a plank supporting the roof

Pity Nietzsche never heeded Confucius
and grasped the profundity
of filial piety

You are far too wrapped up in your private cloak
to grasp the might and purpose of the conquering army

Narcissus
enamored with self
staring at the mirror of your own reflection

Magnet Man - I’ll give you one shot to turn your comments away from other members and back to whatever will pass for a cogent point, here. Or this thread gets locked up.

Faust
I would not engage in this bantering dialogue with Silhouette
if I did not think it brings to the fore
in a very personal manner
two distinct attitudes to life
and how it should be conducted

the mere fact that you do not think it cogent
and actually threaten censorship
on only one of us
indicates
IMHO
an extreme form of social bias on your part #-o

It has the attention
of over 200 views as of now
it would be informative to know
if a majority of the readers agree with you

I, for-one, want to see this played out to the end… speaking-for-myself of course. :smiley: